Tis the season for national championships. One of two seasons, really, since there is usually another spate in the fall. One trend I've noticed from Vietnam to Cuba is the use of a final match. (Qualifying methods vary.) Two-time former Cuban champs Bruzon and Dominguez are now playing a four-game final match. Of course the recently concluded US championship also went for a final match, but it was two rapid games instead of classical chess. This will likely be corrected next time around with a two-game final match weekend.
Koneru Humpy has been getting press for leading the massive Indian championship, although she fell off the pace today. Judit Polgar won the Hungarian "men's" championship in 1991. Not sure if she was 15 or 16 at the time... Her sister Susan also played. After her win it was rather impossible for the Hungarian federation to keep Judit on the women's Olympiad team despite the nearly automatic gold medals the sisters could produce.
The Indian championship is a 21-round all-play-all with one rest day. They play two games on one day seven times, though they'll get little sympathy from veterans of American swisses. As is lamentable tradition in many countries, the top Indian players don't participate in this marathon championship. It's been great to see the Russians and Americans reclaiming the prestige of their national titles in recent years.
The Danish championship currently underway is using what they call "gladiator chess" rules. A draw results in another game at rapid time controls with colors reversed. If that is drawn it goes to alternating blitz games until someone wins. So each pairing has a decisive result in the end. So far this hasn't done anything to decrease the number of draws in the initial classical games. I believe shogi is often played under similar rules, and the "play again until someone wins" method was used in chess back in the 19th century.
"The Danish championship currently underway is using what they call "gladiator chess" rules. A draw results in another game at rapid time controls with colors reversed. If that is drawn it goes to alternating blitz games until someone wins. So each pairing has a decisive result in the end. So far this hasn't done anything to decrease the number of draws in the initial classical games. I believe shogi is often played under similar rules, and the "play again until someone wins" method was used in chess back in the 19th century."
I wonder if this would result in even larger amount of draws in classical chess, since now some players would simply want to get it over with quicker, play an active game and get an extra rest time.
The idea is that the player with white won't want to do this because he plays the next game with black. But we've seen plenty of players willing to skip the classical game/s and go to rapid in the FIDE KO events and there have been quite a few short draws already in the Danish Ch. But having forcing them to play another classical game is too much; they last too long and too few games are decisive, unlike the 19th century.
Thanks Mig for you humor sprinkled insightful comments (as always)!
Yes, the Indian National 'A' is pretty hectic. But the fact that this acts as a qualifier to make it to the Olympiad team makes it interesting to follow. In other words, this format is fan-friendly but nightmarish to the participants. The Indian team already has GMs Anand, Sasikiran and Harikrishna in.
Seems like GMs Koneru and Ganguly (both 9.5/12 so far) will make it to Turin this year.
I wouldn't think Anand would play. The dates are too close to MTEL Masters at Sofia. Plus, he has his lofty rating to protect.
One problem with the 'gladiator chess' variant is that sometimes two players may both prefer fast time controls, and agree to a quick draw in the first game just to shorten the playing session. The alternative of a second classical time control game requires too much time. A better solution is to have a given amount of time (say, 3 hours per player plus 10 seconds per move), and when the first game ends (if drawn), the players reverse colors and start the second game with whatever time is left from the first game. This continues until someone wins. This has several good effects: (1)if the first game(s) is(are) short, then the next is close to classical time controls as well, (2)the players cannot shorten the session by agreeing to a draw, (3)the playing session will end in a reasonable time (say, 7 hours at most, depending on the initial time allotment), and (4)the advantage of having White in the first game is minimized by the alternation of colors.
peach,
Anand played in 2004. Perhaps he'll miss a few rounds, but India has done well even without him. As for his schedule, we'll have to see.
Ah, draws {sigh}. A very minor rule tweak, which I've seen advocated by others, is to allow the draw offer to hold for two, three, or even five moves after it is made, instead of the current half move. This forces the player offering the draw to really want it, and puts pressure on him to make good moves until the offer expires.
In my opinion, this is the simplist and least evasive rule change available for reducing draw percentages. Gladiator chess, .6/.4, BAPP, etc.: throw them all out the window.
Howard Goldowsky
Anand will play the Torino Olympiad, missing a few rounds because of MTel. Topalov will not attempt the double and will play only in Sofia.
India and China has already overtaken the Philippines in terms of chess strength.What a pity.
Howard, that suggestion you endorsed re draw offers sounds to me like the least harmful of any of the multitude of proposals I have heard to address this non-problem.
I say that because although technically the change you mention is a rule change, it would come into play only in connection with draws "by agreement" -- i.e., it would change nothing with regard to various forced draws (stalemate, perpetual/repetition, lack of mating material, etc.)
Therefore it has the merit of being something of a "magic bullet." It would address the problem that most people who insist there IS a "draw problem" claim they're out to solve (i.e. too many games ending before a fight, or when there is still plenty of fight left). But, it would not eliminate the 20%-50% of all beauty potentially offered by the game we currently know as "chess" -- something that the more idiotic among the numerous proposed "solutions to the draw problem" would do.
Speaking of the latter, I was rather stunned to see on the USCF Forums, no less than Bill Goichberg in effect lending his name to endorse one of the "Score a draw as xxx for White, yyy for Black, score a stalemate as zzzz / wwww for stalemating / stalemated side...", ad nauseum. He even went so far as to call for scoring a game that comes down to K vs K as a win for one side or the other (the side whose King can come to the center first).
My shock and horror at seeing this, stemmed less from Goichberg's influence as the no. 1 chess organizer and no. 1 chess politician, than from the fact that he is a strong chess player. As a strong chess player, he (unlike most of those who put forward facile proposals to destroy the village in order to save it) can be presumed to have some inner appreciation for the aesthetic pleasure that can come from chess in the form it's been played over the 500 years or so since the last major rule change (as distinguished from the various types of draw-free "fairy chess" that are being proposed as a means of dumbing down the game to help attract sponsors away from dominoes).